Re: [Debconf-team] German two-bid strategy

[Tiago Bortoletto Vaz <tiago@debian.org>]

Hi,

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 05:17:27PM +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> wrote:
> 
> > I understand that the reason for the two German bids is that this would
> > allow the team to negotiate better conditions from the two options if
> > they win the bid. While that is true, there is no reason why these
> > negotiations could not have happened before today; in fact, one could
> > argue that the whole point of the bidding process is to have this kind
> > of negotiations take place with the stick of a little competition behind
> > the door; we have, in fact, been talking to some options with that as an
> > added note of information.
> 
> We obviously put venues into competing positions already, but please
> keep in mind that due to the sheer size of our sample set[1] there's
> an upper limit on effort. It's also hard to get anyone to commit if we
> cannot commit ourselves, and for that we need to know whether our team
> will host DC15 before entering negotiations. In our experience,
> initial quotes based on what-if and finalized pricing tend to vary
> wildly.
> 
> We agreed from the start that only venue options which we considered
> better than all other bids would make our short list and we pruned our
> list aggressively. E.g. Nuremberg is as least as developed as either
> Mechelen or Karlskrona, but we didn't include it on purpose to focus
> on the very best of the best.
> 
> 
> > As such, this strategy feels a bit like trying to game the system to me;
> > by keeping their options open when winning the bid, the German team gets
> > something of an unfair advantage -- I would be quite upset if debconf15
> > goes to Germany on the idea that one of the two bids is better than
> > Mechelen, only to then find out that this one bid can't work out and we
> > have to go to the other location.
> 
> We are sorry if you feel this way and this is not our intention. We
> are not trying to win a game; we want to make the best possible
> DebConf15 happen and chose our strategy accordingly.
> 
> We communicated our approach and status clearly, publically, and in
> English on the DebConf wiki. It would have been possible for all other
> teams to chose a multi-pronged approach as well, given time and
> resources.
> 
> That we did so, and that we managed to come up with more than one
> option, is proof that our team is willing to invest a _lot_ of time
> and effort into doing things early and thoroughly, and that we do not
> take chances. Turning this around and making it a disadvantage does
> feel arbitrary at best.
> 
> 
> > By postponing the decision in this way, the German team is in effect
> > bypassing the decision meeting's deadline; this feels especially acerbic
> > in light of <20140121032028.GA23562@fishbowl.rw.madduck.net>, where
> > Martin asked for a quick decision.
> 
> From what we know, the only real deadline was to submit bids by the
> end of 2013, and we submitted our bid in time. That we developed
> several alternatives all along and submitted two of them does not bend
> any rules we are aware of.
> 
> By the deadline, there was only one valid bid. We deliberately avoided
> calling attention to this to ensure that all bids could become the
> best possible bids by the time a decision is made.
> 
> 
> > I'm not asking to disqualify the German team, or anything of the sorts.
> > However, I am asking the German team to reconsider their strategy; I
> > understand their desire to keep their options open, but I think it's not
> > the best strategy on the whole.
> 
> We debated this extensively and we strongly feel that this is a valid
> and, for us, the optimal approach. Matter of fact, we believe that our
> approach is better than focusing on a single venue too early which
> results in limited options, and we would wish that more teams should
> use the same strategy.
> 
> 
> > If the German team decides not to change their strategy, then I would
> > like to reiterate Patty's question of last night, and ask the committee
> > to please consider both options when deciding; that is, the German bids
> > should only win if the committee considers that _both_ German options
> > are superior to all other options.
> 
> To be precise, one option should be better and the other one at least
> as good as all other bids.
> You could even argue that if all four venue options are considered
> equal, having two options in one bid would be an advantage.
> 
> If this is a concern that's shared by the committee, it is well within
> their right to consider our bid as two separate bids which happen to
> share the local team. We believe that this would not be a good choice,
> but bow to it if that would make the difference between winning and
> losing the bid.
> 
> 
> 
> We would also like to point out that the venue is only part of the
> bid. The ability to raise sponsor money and the size, redundancy,
> dedication, timeliness, and commitment of the local team should be
> taken into account as well.
> All our answers to this list have been vetted, improved and
> co-authoren by several people before being sent out. At all meetings,
> several of us could make it somehow.
> Contrary to that, the other bid teams seem to be spearheaded by one or
> only a few people at this relatively early stage.

After giving more attention to the bid's pages and reading
emails/meetings backlogs I'm blocked by my current preference:

#1 Heidelberg
#2 Mechelen
#3 Munich

So it's very clear that the 2-options bid strategy makes things
difficult to me.

Regards,

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  .''`.  Tiago Bortoletto Vaz                         GPG  :      4096R/E4B6813D
 : :' :  http://acaia.ca/~tiago                       XMPP : tiago at jabber.org
 `. `'   tiago _at_ {acaia.ca, debian.org}            IRC  :       tiago at OFTC
   `-    Debian GNU/Linux - The Universal OS               http://www.debian.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------